Study finds thickest parts of Arctic ice cap melting faster

Feb 29, 2012 by Rani Gran / Maria-Jos&eacute; Viñas

A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean's floating ice cap.

The thicker ice, known as multi-year ice, survives through the cyclical summer melt season, when young ice that has formed over winter just as quickly melts again. The rapid disappearance of older ice makes Arctic sea ice even more vulnerable to further decline in the summer, said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and author of the study, which was recently published in Journal of Climate.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The most visible change in the Arctic region in recent years has been the rapid decline of the perennial ice cover. The perennial ice is the portion of the sea ice floating on the surface of the ocean that survives the summer. This ice that spans multiple years represents the thickest component of the sea ice cover. This visualization shows the perennial Arctic sea ice from 1980 to 2012. The grey disk at the North Pole indicates the region where no satellite data is collected. A graph overlay shows the area's size measured in million square kilometers for each year. The '1980','2008', and '2012' data points are highlighted on the graph. Credit: NASA

The new research takes a closer look at how multi-year ice, ice that has made it through at least two summers, has diminished with each passing winter over the last three decades. Multi-year ice "extent"  which includes all areas of the Arctic Ocean where multi-year ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface  is diminishing at a rate of -15.1 percent per decade, the study found.

There's another measurement that allows researchers to analyze how the ice cap evolves: multi-year ice "area," which discards areas of open water among ice floes and focuses exclusively on the regions of the Arctic Ocean that are completely covered by multi-year ice. Sea ice area is always smaller than sea ice extent, and it gives scientists the information needed to estimate the total volume of ice in the Arctic Ocean. Comiso found that multi-year ice area is shrinking even faster than multi-year ice extent, by -17.2 percent per decade.

"The average thickness of the Arctic sea ice cover is declining because it is rapidly losing its thick component, the multi-year ice. At the same time, the surface temperature in the Arctic is going up, which results in a shorter ice-forming season," Comiso said. "It would take a persistent cold spell for most multi-year sea ice and other ice types to grow thick enough in the winter to survive the summer melt season and reverse the trend."

Scientists differentiate multi-year ice from both seasonal ice, which comes and goes each year, and "perennial" ice, defined as all ice that has survived at least one summer. In other words: all multi-year ice is perennial ice, but not all perennial ice is multi-year ice (it can also be second-year ice).

Comiso found that perennial ice extent is shrinking at a rate of -12.2 percent per decade, while its area is declining at a rate of -13.5 percent per decade. These numbers indicate that the thickest ice, multiyear-ice, is declining faster than the other perennial ice that surrounds it.

As perennial ice retreated in the last three decades, it opened up new areas of the Arctic Ocean that could then be covered by seasonal ice in the winter. A larger volume of younger ice meant that a larger portion of it made it through the summer and was available to form second-year ice. This is likely the reason why the perennial ice cover, which includes second year ice, is not declining as rapidly as the multiyear ice cover, Comiso said.

Multi-year sea ice hit its record minimum extent in the winter of 2008. That is when it was reduced to about 55 percent of its average extent since the late 1970s, when satellite measurements of the ice cap began. Multi-year sea ice then recovered slightly in the three following years, ultimately reaching an extent 34 percent larger than in 2008, but it dipped again in winter of 2012, to its second lowest extent ever.

For this study, Comiso created a time series of multi-year ice using 32 years of passive microwave data from NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite and the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, taken during the winter months from 1978 to 2011. This is the most robust and longest satellite dataset of Arctic sea ice extent data to date, Comiso said.

Younger ice, made from recently frozen ocean waters, is saltier than multi-year ice, which has had more time to drain its salts. The salt content in first- and second-year ice gives them different electrical properties than multi-year ice: In winter, when the surface of the sea ice is cold and dry, the microwave emissivity of multiyear ice is distinctly different from that of first- and second-year ice. Microwave radiometers on satellites pick up these differences in emissivity, which are observed as variations in brightness temperature for the different types of ice. The "brightness" data are used in an algorithm to discriminate multiyear ice from other types of ice.

Comiso compared the evolution of the extent and area of multi-year ice over time, and confirmed that its decline has accelerated during the last decade, in part because of the dramatic decreases of 2008 and 2012. He also detected a periodic nine-year cycle, where sea ice extent would first grow for a few years, and then shrink until the cycle started again. This cycle is reminiscent of one occurring on the opposite pole, known as the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave, which has been related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation atmospheric pattern. If the nine-year Arctic cycle were to be confirmed, it might explain the slight recovery of the sea ice cover in the three years after it hit its historical minimum in 2008, Comiso said.

Related Stories

Using the latest satellite observations, NASA researchers and others report that the Arctic is still on “thin ice” when it comes to the condition of sea ice cover in the region. A colder-than-average winter ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- Last month the extent of sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean declined to the second-lowest extent on record. Satellite data from NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center ...

NASA data shows that Arctic perennial sea ice, which normally survives the summer melt season and remains year-round, shrunk abruptly by 14 percent between 2004 and 2005. According to researchers, the loss of perennial ice ...

Following a record-breaking season of arctic sea ice decline in 2007, NASA scientists have kept a close watch on the 2008 melt season. Although the melt season did not break the record for ice loss, NASA data ...

Scientists at NSIDC announced that March 2006 shows the lowest Arctic winter sea ice extent since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 (see Figures 1 and 2). Sea ice extent, or the area of ocean that ...

The ocean is a large reservoir of dissolved organic molecules, and many of these molecules are stable against microbial utilization for hundreds to thousands of years. They contain a similar amount of carbon ...

The fires superimposed on the satellite image of southeastern Australia designated by red spots may be indicative of "planned burns" by the Victoria region. This map: http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/fire-and-emergencies/planned-burns/planned-burns-now-and-next-10-days found on the Department of the Environment and Primary Industries for the State of Victoria shows the burns th ...

NASA's Aqua satellite captured an image of Typhoon Maysak as it strengthened into a super typhoon on March 31, reaching Category 5 hurricane status on the Saffir-Simpson Wind Scale. The TRMM and GPM satellites, ...

An international research team, led by a Virginia Tech geoscientist, has revealed information about how continents were generated on Earth more than 2.5 billion years ago—and how those processes have continued ...

The 2010 eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull grounded thousands of air flights and spread ash over much of western Europe, yet it was puny compared to the eruption 200 years ago of Tambora, ...

Lets face it, after the space shuttle was de-funded NASA needed a reason to exist so they decided to protect the world from rogue asteroids. Well there is only so many billion you can milk out of that fear so they graduated to AGW and the false data created by Jim Hansen.

Warming precedes CO2 increases. CO2 does not increase warming nearly as much as other factors. Plus, CO2 warming is not a liner function it decreases as concentrations increase.

In the past, CO2 did follow warming producing feedback as the earth moved in its orbit. One of the problematic issues for the present situation is that humans have artificially increased CO2. Now, CO2 is leading warming. This is unique within the climate data that is known now. That means we seem to be driving the heating with our own actions. How that works out is unknown, but the models indicate we are causing serious problems for our planet.

"The other side of the argument." Talk about cherry picking ur data! Take a look at the whole picture presented here on the NASA web site http://data.giss....aphs_v3/ Holy shit - almost all the graphs trend upwards very clearly - except the one picked by WUWT. Wonder how that happened!!!!

@ Vendicar tell us why they're lies, and then tell us why NASA "adjusts" the data. They often seem to adjust to show more warming as the did in Icelandhttp://notrickszo...evision/ By the way.... I love it when you talk dirtyxxx

"NASA "adjusts" the data." So it is just fine to use cherry picked NASA data when it supports your position (MR166 post above) - but then dismiss NASA's data out of hand as fudged - when it does not support your position.

Look warmists the crux of the article says that the feedback is not nearly as positive as claimed by the models and in fact could be negative. If the models were correct it would be much warmer than it is today. Also, as stated, a positive feedback would lead to an instability that would have made the earth uninhabitable eons ago.

Look warmists the crux of the article says that the feedback is not nearly as positive as claimed by the models and in fact could be negative. If the models were correct it would be much warmer than it is today. Also, as stated, a positive feedback would lead to an instability that would have made the earth uninhabitable eons ago.

The word "feedback" doesn't appear in the article...anywhere. It (the article) provides 2 data sets which both exhibit a continued loss of both multi year and perennial ice. A negative feedback would constitute a net gain of both types of ice. A positive feedback would lead to an instability that will make life extremely difficult, but not an extinction event. They make no mention of models either, so you are somehow drawing these conclusions which appear to be hallucinogen driven. The crux of the article is that within 10 years you can take a september dip at the geographic north pole.

Amy keep living in your delusional world if it makes you happy. Warmist funding has to be 100x the funding of the Deniers. Just the governments alone have provided billions in Warmist funding. I am willing to bet that Soros has funded the Warmists 3x more than the total of all Denier funding.

Just another thought here, any scientist that has dared to contradict the Warmists has been branded incompetent, denied publication in scientific journals and most likely denied university funding and advancement. It is kind of like a liberal endorsed McCarthyism.

"I was referring to the 2nd link that I posted." Which I believe was the WUWT article - a very absurd article that cherry picks one data set from NASA - and ignores multiple other data sets that show totally different trend directions. Then when that is pointed out to you - there is silence - and then a ridiculous assertion that NASA fudges their data. No they don't. Sometimes they use mathematical corrections - when multiple data sets don't perfectly align. That is a standard scientific process. As to following the money - we will never know who gets what money - so much of it is hidden - however - as the preponderance of evidence supports the notion that the globe is warming (please show global data if you wish to refute that idea) - it makes sense that the majority of research dollars go to the folks who are studying reality - rather than religious fantasy land.

DJR the warmists will keep up this silly charade until the glaciers reach Washington D.C., in other words until hell freezes over. Then they will find some sort of "overlooked" feedback loop or "discover" that there was an erroneous plus sign where there should have been a minus sign in their highly vaulted climate models.

CO2 will still be the culprit and of course the governments will still need to pick our pockets and steal our freedoms in order to control it and "Save the world".

Hey - MR166 - you live in whatever fantasy world your paranoid mind needs. I will give you one fact - using glaciers (just picking up on your post) - please refute this fact with data. In line with the IPCC predictions - glaciers across the globe are retreating at an alarming rate. My data - http://www.nichol...reat.htm Now - staying away from all the hyperbole about lying scientists - and global conspiracy theory - please present data to refute that fact. We could move on to ice sheets, ocean levels, global temperatures etc - but let's stick with one area for now - it keeps it simple.

IPCC hahahahahah! Yeah,,,, the UN is a realllly credible institution that would never lie in order to increase their power. Sea levels are FALLING, how bad could the glacier melt be? Global temps have been constant or falling for 10 years or so. NONE of the climate models predicted even the possibility of this happening. Lets face it DJR you now are now the proud 1/2 owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.

@dir Glacier melt is not evidence that CO2 causes catastrophic warming any more than roosters crowing at dawn cause the sun to rise. The IPCC has little credibility as, despite continued assurances to the contrary, the used 30% grey literature and where stacked with green activists . The greens are happily sinking there own ship and blaming the mythical "Denier" which they created. We are coming out of the little ice age so the planet is warming. With friends like you the greens don't need enemies. They're sinking their own ship.

"Glacier melt is not evidence that CO2 causes catastrophic warming" I agree - it is just one piece of a very complex puzzle - and scientists are trying to understand that puzzle, and then to get more complex - trying to project what is going to happen in the future. It is interesting that you ask for "evidence" - when the accusations go against you. MR166 can claim that sea levels are falling etc. and I don't hear cries for evidence. The denier is anything but mythical gregor - look in the mirror - or at shootist, or MR166, or Rygg, etc. The peanut gallery - that has to deride every single piece of research that refers to climate change. The potential consequences are catastrophic - I will be very happy if the current plateau turns downwards - I am happy to let the science tell us what is real.

If I'm a denier what is it that I deny? Climate change? No Warming? No. The greenhouse effect due to CO2 perhaps? No not that either. I (and Watts too I believe though he will have to speak for himself). The "denier" label is merely an attempt to stifle investigation into a group of people with huge vested interests who are finding themselves stranded on increasingly thin scientific ice. Your abusive tone leads one to suspect you have much to hide. "The peanut gallery" is yet another ad hominem attack and Watt's character a classic straw man. If Einstein was a junkie would that make the theory of relativity less valid? Get a grip please...

"Your abusive tone leads one to suspect you have much to hide." What could u possibly suspect I have to hide? Such a strange thought. My abusive tone comes from the frustration that I feel watching science being constantly attacked - by a group of people - who clearly have an agenda - and are not interested in reality. No matter what the data - if the research says "climate change" - they attack it. So big deal! But this attack on science has consequences. Just look at the data that is presented in this article - http://www.nichol...reat.htm Yet a recent physorg article on glaciers - was attacked by the peanut gallery. Again - it has consequences. It is possible we are heading in to the next great extinction. Let's let the scientists do their jobs - and learn about what is going on with our climate - and if we need to do something about - let's figure that out too.

Gregor - why do I label you a denier - and take an aggressive attitude? Look at this statement - "The greens are happily sinking there own ship" What does that even mean? Who are "the greens?" You know nothing about me. I support the use of science. I support the use of nuclear power. I grow my own food. Life is complex. This is not about Al Gore, or Green Peace - for me this is about science. When I read a web site that reports on science research - and watch science being attacked over and over - I think the term denier is very appropriate - and make no apology for being blunt. Perhaps you are not a denier - and I was unfair there. I have looked often at the site WhatsUpWithThat. It definitely has a political agenda - it is not about understanding reality - it is about proving a point. Physorg does not appear to have a political agenda - it is the peanut gallery that introduces that ugly monster.

DJR glaciers are not static items they advance and they recede. A mere 18,000 years ago glaciers 1 mile thick covered much of the US and no one has blamed that on man made CO2. Ice at the north pole has thinned and parts have totally disappeared many times since the early 1800s. Old newspapers have many accounts of this. Changes in ocean currents has as much to do with this as changes in temperature.

Not to long a go, the body of an ancient farmer was found buried in what is now permafrost in Greenland. Then it was farmland and now it is permafrost.

In short, things change with or without man. Of course - do you know of scientists who don't understand the cycles our climate has been through? Do you not also agree that the consequences of climate change MAY be catastrophic? See - http://en.wikiped...on_event So don't you think it is prudent for us to study the issue - and see how well we can understand what is happening with our climate? The problem for me is the constant need on the part of the peanut gallery to attack the science - instead of letting the science take it's course. The real tragedy is that we move forward as a species as we develop new technologies - new understandings - and possibly figure out that we have to learn to live sustainably on our planet. It is the anti science peanut gallery that is holding back our progress.

"Do you not also agree that the consequences of climate change MAY be catastrophic?"

Do you know that wasting trillions of dollars for fixes that are based on unproven science and biased computer simulations will further bankrupt the western world and cause hundreds of thousands to stave when the economic collapse comes?

"wasting trillions of dollars for fixes that are based on unproven science" I do not support wasting trillions of dollars on unproven science. We have wasted trillions of dollars on war (add up Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan). I wish we had spent that money on nuclear power plants, and become energy independent. Can we be intelligent and find win win solutions? I think we can. We have to get over the anti science idiocy - which is horribly corrupting our political process here in the U.S. Here is an interesting project that seems to me to have great potential in terms of win win solutions. http://www.youtub...VlZ9v_0o I don't hear the anti science crowd fussing about the billions being spent on fusion. I would prefer to see that money spent on more mature technologies such as thorium - I do appreciate the need to invest in new technologies - gvt private sector partnerships seem to make sense - although - yes -there is the potential for abuse-we shld be prudent

My last 2 cents too. You may want to think about someone who claims not to be anti science - yet takes a position on a subject as important as climate change - that is in conflict with the preponderance of the evidence, and the scientific consensus. Go to the the AAAS web site and see what I am talking about. Here is letter signed in 2009 by 18 major scientific organizations - expressing concern about AGW. http://www.aaas.o...tter.pdf Can you show a letter signed by one major scientific organization that supports your position? Just something to think about.

Do you know that wasting trillions of dollars for fixes that are based on unproven science and biased computer simulations will further bankrupt the western world and cause hundreds of thousands to stave when the economic collapse comes?

Presumably you refer to the monies wasted by Big Oil on propaganda pushing scientific falsehoods so as to encourage the masses to mortgage their future for the present benefit of Big Oil.

Correction. Virtually all of the "scientists" who deny the overwhelming evidence of global warming haven't been scientists for decades.

Consider David Ball. Hasn't published in over 20 years. Fred Singer. Hasn't published in 30 years.

The August 2007 Newsweek cover story "The Truth About Denial" reported that "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change."

"Just another thought here, any scientist that has dared to contradict the Warmists has been branded..." - MR166Tard

@MR166 ...any scientist that has dared to contradict the Warmists has been branded incompetent, denied publication in scientific journals and most likely denied university funding and advancement. It is kind of like a liberal endorsed McCarthyism.

Well, at least they will always have the TardLand Institute for backup and support.

Please. If you are reading this and are actually interested in the climate debate go and look for yourselfhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/. Check it out and make up ypur own mind. See if you think Vendicar"s ad hominem attacks are justified.

"go and look for yourselfhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/" And as you are reading - ask yourself a pretty basic science question - does this publication appear to have an agenda? Now there is nothing wrong with having an agenda per se - we all do. So science - recognizing the natural human tendency to filter information based on our own personal bias - tries to build in checks and balances - like asking others to repeat your experiments etc. I think you will see quite clearly that Watts has a very transparent bias - he cherry picks his data - he is not interested in a dialogue with other scientists - so scores pretty low on a scale of credibility in terms of being a source for knowledge.

Vendicar, djr, etc, don't feed the trolls please. They will only grow into bigger trolls. Whether its bad science, pseudoscience, cold fusion, fear of socialism ,national self hatred, antizionism, or something else the best answer for the drivel is to set the comment slider to an acceptable level, and press filter.

Went to Glacier National Park last summer for the second time in 30 years, looked like a damned gravel pit in comparison to its former beauty. Peace

I am afraid you are right Estevan. By being silent - it feels like we are giving up the floor to the anti-science gang. But it does not seem to accomplish anything either - just takes a lot of time to rebuff their arguments - and it means nothing - becuz they recycle their arguments on the next argument. I know I have spend my time on more product activities - I will try to hold my tongue. Thanks. David.

From memory, over the last six to ten years, there have been three discoveries of volcanoes; one is under the same area in Antartica where the shelf fell off (after it had melted from below). One is in Greenland, right underneath the area of the icecap that has seen really high rates of melting. And the most recent were found---guess what---under the Artic Sea. Now, let's have a little thought experiment: mantle heats up and comes out of the volcano into the Artic Sea. The Artic Sea warms up ever so slightly. The thickest part of the Artic Ice Cap will extend deepest into the Sea simply from buoyancy needs. The first part of the Ice Cap to melt, then, would be that which is closest to the source of heating. Hence the thickest part will melt first. This is all elementary.

Please. Anyone who feels that the anti-science and oil industry deceit and nonsense that appears at Watts up is living in fantasy land.

What we're witnessing is crony capitalism on a level never seen before in human history. Huge commercial concerns, and politicians who will receive bribes and campaign funds, all stand to reap huge profits in this psuedo-science dark comedy. What this is all about is very powerful forces colluding with the taxation powers of the state to direct tax-payer money to the filthy rich.

And, Vendicar, please explain to me how and why the warming we've been seeing for the last hundred and eighty years began in 1832. CO2 was of no consequence in those days. So what, exactly, started the warming. And if you have no answer to that, then you have no credibility whatsoever when you begin making claims about human-induced global warming.

The Larson B ice shelf has a series of 16 fumeroles along one side, falled the "seal nunataks". Denialists often refer to them as "volcanoes" but in fact they are long lived fumeroles that are about the size of an apartment building.

The long dead shield volcano from which the nunataks rise is actually cooling over time, so if it is emitting sufficient heat to melt the surface ice to the north and south of the nunataks then it is emitting sufficient heat to prevent the ice shelf fromforming in the first place.

"From memory, over the last six to ten years, there have been three discoveries of volcanoes; one is under the same area in Antartica where the shelf fell off" - LinoTard

Are you really so stupid to believe that it did? Certainly no one in the scientific community. Perhaps a paid liar in the employ of the Oil industry told you. You know. Like the liars employed by the Libertarian Heartland Institute.

You know the Heartland Institute. It is employed by Phillip Morris to tell you that smoking isn't dangerous and to tell children that smoking is a lifestyle choice that they should think seriously about.

"And, Vendicar, please explain to me how and why the warming we've been seeing for the last hundred and eighty years began in 1832. " - LinoTard

"And, Vendicar, please explain to me how and why the warming ........ no answer to that, then you have no credibility whatsoever when you begin making claims about human-induced global warming."

Steel production, due to the expansion of rail, infrastructure, and manufacturing. Just that simple. Look up the history, choose your source. A little research please before trying to thrash on the position of others. Crony Capitalism has always been around, look up the history of the American industrialists and rail tycoons etc.

The research team announced at a July 13 poster session of the 11th International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences that its survey discovered the presence of 12 active submarine volcanoes (some almost three kilometers high) and the remnants of more. The collapsed volcanoes had formed craters about five kilometers in width.

BTW, I have a way above average IQ, and have never heard of the Liberty Heartland whatever.

"And, Vendicar, please explain to me how and why the warming ........ no answer to that, then you have no credibility whatsoever when you begin making claims about human-induced global warming."

Steel production, due to the expansion of rail, infrastructure, and manufacturing. Just that simple. Look up the history, choose your source. A little research please before trying to thrash on the position of others. Crony Capitalism has always been around, look up the history of the American industrialists and rail tycoons etc.

I've seen a chart. Have you? And CO2 is very low well into the beginning of the 20th Century. Here's a link: http://www.ferdin...nts.html See Section 5.2 Read it and weep.

"So what, exactly, started the warming. And if you have no answer to that" - LinoTard

The temperature of the atmosphere is in part a function of CO2 concentration. Increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and you increase it's temperature, all other things being equal.

It isn't rocket science. Children of almost any age can understand the principle.

Let me help you out here. The biggest driver of the "greenhouse effect" is, as you would suspect, water vapor. It's effect is 15 to 20 times that of CO2, from what I can remember. If the oceans increase in temperature, then CO2 will be released from them. Because of density differences, air cannot 'warm up' the oceans; but the opposite, of course, is true. But, at the same time, more WATER VAPOR will be present in the atmosphere. Global temperatures will rise slightly as a result.

Do you see the tiny little dot in the central blue section marked with the J.

That is the volcano.

From the inset you can see it's location relative to the rest of the Antarctic.

How do you propose that little speck is heating the entire Antarctic? And how is it's trivial amount of heat being transported hundreds of miles against prevailing ocean currents to the Larson B ice shelf?

"The most visible change in the Arctic region in recent years has been the rapid decline of the perennial ice cover."A quote.

"As perennial ice retreated in the last three decades, it opened up new areas of the Arctic Ocean."Another.

Sorry buddy, wrong hemisphere.

You had asked for the reason for the begining of the rise of Co2 in the 1830s and it was supplied.

In a chart from your provided site (Sponge size and co2) section 5.3 it states and charts that sponge size declines as a result of industrial co2 production. Just sayin. No other information goes further back than 1900.

"This adds to the overall evidence that human emissions are the main cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Also from this study. section 5.6 Conclusions. Thanks for the info, but please understand it better before using someone elses opinion.

My dear Estevan. We're talking about Antartica because dear old Vendicar knows that volcanoes exist underneath the Artic, and under the Greenland Ice Cap. So, he's tried to change the subject, thinking that I was mistaken. But it turns out that he's mistaken. So, do please, look this all up online. It can be done. Knowledge is a wonderful thing.

"From memory, over the last six to ten years, there have been three discoveries of volcanoes; one is under the same area in Antartica where the shelf fell off." - LinoTard

His new claim.

"We're talking about Antartica because dear old Vendicar knows that volcanoes exist underneath the Artic, and under the Greenland Ice Cap. So, he's tried to change the subject, thinking that I was mistaken." - LinoTard

So we are talking about the Antarctic because LenoTard made a claim about the Antarctic.

How do you propose that little speck is heating the entire Antarctic? And how is it's trivial amount of heat being transported hundreds of miles against prevailing ocean currents to the Larson B ice shelf?

It doesn't need to heat up the entire Antarctic; it only needs to marginally warm up the waters underneath the ice shelf. And what makes you think that every single volcano that exists in the Antarctic Sea has been discovered?

And please tell us all just exactly what the mechanism is that caused the ice shelf to collapse. How is this related to human produced CO2?

Will you tell us that CO2 caused the atmosphere to heat up, and this caused the ice shelf to thin out, and it broke off? But that's not what happened. It broke off from the bottom. It didn't thin out from above. So, just what kind of mechanism do you propose?

From memory, over the last six to ten years, there have been three discoveries of volcanoes; one is under the same area in Antartica where the shelf fell off (after it had melted from below). One is in Greenland, right underneath the area of the icecap that has seen really high rates of melting. And the most recent were found---guess what---under the Artic Sea.

Here's your latest statement:

So we are talking about the Antarctic because LenoTard made a claim about the Antarctic.

A lack of honesty is a common trait among Denialists.

Who's being dishonest? We're talking about Antarctica because out of the three areas I mentioned, you chose to talk about Antarctica, even though my main comments had to do with the Arctic. Let's be clear here.

After researching this for a while I find that there is no scientific proof for appreciable (less than 1 degree) heating of the Arctic sea or the antarctic from geothermal activity. There are sites that claim this as the reason for melting, but the data concerning sea temps has shown no temperature rise in the waters below the ice. There is however, a wide variety of evidence for air temperature rise.

The point of the article was the rapid decrease of multiyear ice.

If you don't want to believe scientific theory, or the massive amount of data behind it, then don't. But don't expect one wacky website to convince someone else of your viewpoint.

Dear Vendicar, when I took thermodynamics in college, too bad you weren't there to help me. You're so smart.

To talk about heat capacities to talk above everybody's head. Everyhone knows that water is much denser than air. Further, the greatest single reason that the heat capacity of water is so much more than that of air is its density. Unless you would like to dispute this point.

As to your calculations, if I light a match under your nose, it won't heat the room up much, but you'll certainly notice. So, there is really no point to your numbers. If the Arctic Ocean is liquid---which it obviously is, then any amount of heat transferred into it will rise, and the energy it represents can, and very likely does, cause melting.

Why

And as to Estevan's research, the entire amount of "global warming" is of the order of 1.5 degrees C over the last 150 years. So to say that the temperature of the Arctic Ocean has gone up less than 1 degree C, is to miss the forest for the trees.

"They tell us that they estimate that there are 3 million underwater volcanoes." - LinoTard

Virtually none of which will be active.

And yet a million large active volcanoes would be needed to heat he arctic ocean 1'C in 150 years.

Now the arctic ocean is only 5.4 million square miles in extent, the total ocean area on the other hand is 25 times larger. So even if there were 3 million active large volcano's scattered over the ocean then only 120,000 would exist in the arctic, and warming rates would be 1'C/ 1500 years.

This presumes of course that there is no increased radiation or evaporation to cool the ocean.

Worse for you, your "volcanoes" are miniscule. So perhaps 15,000 years for a 1'C rise.

According to NASA, the Goddard research Center, and others, the temperature of the arctic and antarctic ocean has not changed more than .5 degrees since we have been measuring temperature. I didn't state anything about global waters.I was specific on the information I stated.

In the long run:If the air above ice is warmer than the ice, and the sun shines apon it, the ice will melt. Heat capacities don't matter, the ice melts.

If the water under the ice is the same or colder than 32f, the ice won't melt unles it melts from the top. It is-saline and all.

Just because it is a volcano doesn't mean it produces enough heat to do what only discredited theories say it does. I live 50 miles away from a volcano (Mount Hood) and I enjoy the glaciers and snowpack that I ski on every winter. It vents, and is still considered active but still cant melt enough snow to make a small stream.

Ya, but the Magic volcanoes on the planet Conservadopia are different.

"Just because it is a volcano doesn't mean it produces enough heat to do what only discredited theories say it does. I live 50 miles away from a volcano (Mount Hood) and I enjoy the glaciers and snowpack that I ski on every winter. It vents, and is still considered active but still cant melt enough snow to make a small stream." - Estevan

But that is your opinion. One of the links I've provided is of a scientist who had to make a video to convince other scientists that magma was actually flowing out of one of these underwater volcanoes.

As to Mt. Hood, I too have skied there. But it is a dormant volcano. How can you compare that to active ones?

Yes, it is my opinion that there aren't 1 million massive and invisible volcano's at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean.

I also hold the opinion that the flapping of the wings of trillions of invisible angels are keeping the moon in it's orbit.

Since the invisible underwater volcano solution is your desired answer to how the ocean is warming, rather than the scientifically verified answer that CO2 is heating the atmosphere, ans since as it has been mentioned air temperatures are observed to higher than surface water temperatures, negating the ability of the water to warm the air, the only conclusion is that you are mentally ill, and not capable of rational thought, but would rather rely on magical thinking. You invoke ghosts and gobblens and invisible things that go bump in the night rather than reason.

I advise you to go play on facebook with the other children so you can discuss the latest Elvis sightings, or how you were kidnapped by space aliens.